Category Archives: Western Canada

Rafe: BCNDP convention shows they still don’t get it on LNG

November 16, 2015Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&Gas, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe- BCNDP convention shows they still don't get it — BCNDP Leader John Horgan at the party’s recent convention (NDP/facebook)

Political pundits are busy analyzing the recent NDP convention and I can tell you it’s easier to interpret the entrails of a rooster. Conventions organized to look like sunny expressions of the party’s solidarity and readiness for an election usually disguise more than they reveal.

What this NDP clambake tells me is that the party is sick to death of leadership fights and “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t” – a highly dubious substitute for skill and character.

The good news first

Starting with the good news, the party caucus has done a decent job of exposing government malfeasance, in the health and the email scandals in particular, and demonstrating the general incompetence of the Premier and her cabinet. (Not too tough considering how willingly they do that on their own.)

Unfortunately for the NDP, history tells us that these sorts of issues don’t have “legs”. When it comes to election time, the public has different considerations; from experience they expect government misbehaviour and only want to know what will happen to their pocketbook in the next four years. Election after election has proved that.

It’s also true that parties tend to lose elections rather than win them and the Clark/Coleman government, now old and corrupt, is ready for a rest – a long one. A permanent one, in my view.

Why back LNG?

To take advantage, the Opposition must look like a government in waiting. If, however, as we have just seen in the recent federal election, voters want rid of a government badly enough, they’ll say, “they can hardly be worse than this bunch” and overlook opposition inexperience.

It’s foolish in the extreme for an Opposition to rely on this happening, yet Mr. Horgan, in his keynote speech, said nothing about the environment and showed no inclination to back off the party’s idiotic, wholehearted support for LNG. If this remains NDP policy, it will offer the atrocious Clark/Coleman bunch a lifeline because voters do care about these issues and before you write Premier Photo-op off, remember Mair’s Axiom I: “You don’t have to be a 10 in politics, you can be 3 if your opponent is a 2.”

Whether or not Mr. Horgan realizes it, LNG will be an issue in 2017, much including the proposed Woodfibre LNG plant. The Horgan-led NDP has badly let down those who expect that an Official Opposition will ask some basic questions about controversial and dangerous mega-projects like this one. WLNG is not a NIMBY issue at all but a real and substantial danger to life and limb, not to mention to the environment of this beautiful fjord.

Howe Sound belongs not to those who live near it but to all British Columbia – it’s a jewel in the provincial diadem. Thanks to a lot of volunteers particularly, Howe Sound has nearly recovered from decades of dirty industry; the herring and salmon runs are returning to what they once were, sea mammals, including several types of whales, are back, as are seals, sea lions, and even porpoise. It is incredibly beautiful and unspoiled even though next to a metropolis. I would have thought that not even the most cynical politician would place all this in jeopardy without at least asking a few simple questions of the government. I was obviously wrong.

Woodfibre gets a free ride

There’s the appalling environmental assessment pantomime which the government relied upon to approve WLNG with very significant aspects of the proposal not properly canvassed.

Before getting to the basic environmental questions, I must ask Mr.Horgan why he has never questioned the Clark/Coleman government about the integrity of Woodfibre LNG?

It’s owned, as most now know, by a crook from Indonesia best known for paying a $200+ million fine for evading taxes; for burning down jungles; and brutally evicting people who may be uncomfortably in the way of his plans. He’s not hard to investigate, Mr. Horgan, so why don’t you want to know why the Clark government is involved with this sort of man in an operation of this magnitude?

There’s the question of the plant itself, the pipelines involved, the safety of converting natural gas into LNG, the disposal of waste – especially warm water – the impact on marine life around Squamish, which is becoming increasingly important. All the normal environmental concerns and questions the citizens of Squamish and surrounding areas want answered were sloughed of or ignored by the ersatz environmenal assessment “process”.

Mr. Horgan, why won’t you, as Leader of the Official Opposition, on behalf of all British Columbians but Squamish people especially, carefully examine the Clark/Coleman bunch on these critical issues? Isn’t that your job?

Tanker danger

Then there’s the question of transportation of the LNG by tankers down Howe Sound itself. Here, in a nutshell, is the explosive (sick pun intended) issue.

The Society of International Gas Tankers and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO)* – the acknowledged world authority on LNG issues – has set standards for the LNG tanker trade. SIGTTO’s #1 and overriding criterion is that there is no acceptable probability of a catastrophic LNG release, i.e. the only acceptable probability is ZERO.

On the critical issue of separation, Sandia International Laboratories has defined for the US Department of Energy three hazard zones of 500m, 1600m, 3500m surrounding LNG tankers. The largest, a circle of 3500m radius, centred on the moving ship, represents the minimum safe separation between tanker and people. Other LNG hazard experts say at least 4800m is a more realistic minimum safe separation.

Plainly – and you need only look at the chart – Howe Sound is far too narrow. Surely that in itself must be fatal to the project!

Isn’t the safety of Howe Sound, extending to western West Vancouver, even worth a question to the Premier, Mr. Horgan?

Let’s just sum up what you evidently see as unwarranted whining, Mr. Horgan.

1. The owner of the company we must depend upon for taxes and royalties, plus caring of our delicate environment, is a big-time tax evader with an utterly appalling environmental record.

2. The people of Squamish and surroundings, facing the immediate consequences of any environmental “accidents”, are asked, and arrogantly expected, to accept a phoney environmental process, where the “fix” was in from the start, and which gave Woodfibre LNG the patented Christy Clark corporate whitewash. They would have been more honestly dealt with by a denial of process than by a process reminiscent of a Soviet Show Trial.

3. The most disastrous consequences to be feared are from a tanker mishap, which, mathematically, is not a possibility or even a probability but a certainty – merely a matter of time. This time will clearly be abridged by an utter lack of concern about internationally-recognized rules re: hazard and separation zones yet, Mr. Horgan, you haven’t uttered a peep to the government about this critical issue!

NDP ignores call for help

We’ve asked for NDP help, yet on these issues, of so much concern to so many of your fellow citizens, the Official Opposition, including you and your MLAs – because of your blanket approval of LNG – has been as scarce as a tumbler of Glenfiddich at a temperance meeting.

Is this the care you will show for British Columbians if you become premier?

Yes, the sunny simpleton and her trained seals now running the province must be replaced, but with the likes of you, sir? A man lacking the political or moral courage to help citizens threatened by crooks, environmental rapists, and tanker disasters, as our Premier? A Leader of the Official Opposition who doesn’t understand his duty? A man who imposed a catastrophic LNG policy on his party because he’s afraid of losing a couple of seats where highly destructive and dangerous fracking is prevalent?

God forbid!

BC deserves the Green Party or a new party representing the people of the province, not just cheerleaders led by a political sissy. But time is short, with just a year and a half left for serious contenders to get their asses in gear.

*WLNG claims that because they are members of SIGTTO that their plan is safe. This is corporate bullshit. Membership does not imply let alone confirm compliance and, indeed, anyone reading this can join SIGGTO as an associate member – which is all WLNG is!

British Columbians reject premiers’ “Canadian Energy Strategy” – designed to push pipelines

July 15, 2015Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedRoy Hales

Citizens on Burnaby Mountain the day Kinder Morgan's injunction was read out (Mark Klotz/Flickr) — Citizens on Burnaby Mountain the day Kinder Morgan’s injunction was read out (Mark Klotz/Flickr)

Republished from the ECOreport.

According to the Globe and Mail, Canadian Premiers are about to sign an agreement that would fast track pipeline projects. The 34-page-report describes how to deal with the opposition Energy East, Kinder Morgan, Northern Gateway and Keystone XL faced from environmental groups and First Nations. It suggests that red tape be cut down so decisions can be quicker. If the initial responses from community leaders are an indication, BC says NO to “Canadian Energy Strategy”.

Business as usual not good enough

“I was rather surprised to read the article and I question the urgency and rush. If there is a rush, it is that we diversify our economy instead of doubling down on an industry that is oversupplied globally,” said Green MLA Andrew Weaver.

“A document prepared for a premier’s meeting doesn’t come close to developing a national energy strategy,” says Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan.

[quote]If they want social license to move fossil fuel products, they will have to be much more inclusive and listen to the citizens of their provinces and territories. Business as usual just isn’t good enough.[/quote]

Former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen says, “The draft report appears to be outdated and out of step with both current oil market realities, and the strong opposition by most Canadians to building oil pipelines and expanding oil sands extraction without a view to adding value in Canada. Canadians are also clear about their unwillingness to put up with anything short of meaningful limitations on GHG emissions.”

“If what is being reported in the Globe and Mail is accurate, it is extremely short-sighted. We need a genuine shift in our approach to climate change, not some closed-door deal that is going to help the companies and not help the public,” said Bob Peart, Executive Director of Sierra Club BC.

Governing vs. Ruling

Erin Flanagan, of the Pembina Institute, pointed out that because “a very significant number of Canadians” were opposed to both the proposed Kinder Morgan and Northern Gateway pipelines, these projects have been delayed and may never be built.

She added that when constituents raise questions about pipelines or Climate Change, they should be adequately considered.

Rafe: Critics of Burnaby Mountain citizens are out of touch with public will for change — 84 year-old retried librarian Barbara Grant getting arrested at Burnaby Mountain (Burnaby Mountain Updates/facebook)

Bob Peart found the way in which the premiers are trying to cut the voice of the Canadian public out of decision making process disturbing.

“Someone said to me the other day, historically we elected governments to govern and now all they do is rule. There is a difference between ruling and governing. Governments today rule and doesn’t give much room for citizen’s concerns to be put on the table.

“That means you have to yell and scream and build up a public wall of noise. Sometimes they listen to that, but they usually don’t, so you end up having to go to the courts or be like Burnaby Mountain and have people marching,” he said.

Federal election will test pipeline policies

Canada appears to be approaching a crossroads. It is not certain that corporations will continue to exercise the same degree of control as they have in recent years. Peart stressed the need for people to vote in the upcoming election.

“The studies are pretty clear – if voter turn-out is low it favors the right. Generally it is the progressive people who are discouraged and don’t vote,” he added.

“Canadians want and expect to have more say, and I think we will witness that voice during the federal election in October,” said Marc Eliesen.

Premiers could pay political price for pushing pipelines

Flanagan said the “Canadian Energy Strategy” originated with Albertan concerns about access to markets. It is important for premiers negotiating an energy strategy to hear that they “must also consider Canada’s contribution to the fight against Climate Change.” They have to realize “it is not politically advantageous for a premier to sign on to an agreement like this.”

Rafe: Notley should change electoral system following Alberta NDP win…no, seriously

May 6, 2015Politics, Western CanadafeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe- Notley should change electoral system following Alberta NDP win — Alberta Premier Elect Rachel Notley celebrates a shocking victory (Alberta NDP facebook page)

Somehow, the day after it happened, the election of the NDP in Alberta doesn’t seem quite as astonishing as it would have say, a year ago. Back then, one would have been in danger of certification as mad to predict that the Tories, after some 43 years, would be turfed out of what had become a political fiefdom. They reigned supreme with no contenders in sight, the Wildrose Party having apparently disintegrated. The Liberals had never been much of a force, although, from time to time, they would pop up hopefully as Liberals are wont to – and the NDP, well, they were just the NDP, a hopeless island of the left in a sea of the right.

A good part of the NDP victory is, of course, simple exhaustion with a very old government. It’s also due to some bad luck for the Tories – the same sort of bad luck that has hit every government relying upon fossil fuels for their day-to-day livelihood.

Ready for Rachel

Another enormous factor was Rachel Notley, bred in politics and ideally suited for the moment.

Leaders had become pretty stuffy in Alberta as they tend to become in democratic dictatorships, or any dictatorships for that matter. She caught of the mood of the times and had what so many politicians don’t have: patience. Mind you, much of that patience was imposed by the circumstances.

One cannot overlook the impact of the late Jack Layton on the NDP generally in Canada. The members of the NDP had been drifting towards the centre for sometime but their leaders had not caught up. Layton did and so did Notley.

What now?

There will be much more perspicacious observers than me looking at this election and I will leave the sorting out of the pepper from the fly shit to them. The question is what will the NDP do now that they have plucked the plum from the pie?

The honest answer to that question is, “I’m damned if I know.” However, one does not get away with that sort of answer in this business!

First off, Ms. Notley has homework to do. She has an economy that is bad, getting worse and a citizenry who are not used to that sort of situation.

Philosophically the NDP are not Tar Sands people. They must become that, however, if there is to be recovery and the question is how will that happen?

A Hobson’s choice

She really has three choices – she can subsidize the industry, she can actively help sell the product, or she can wait and see and hope that international oil prices save the day. This is a terrible triple Hobson’s choice and she’s not to be envied.

There is no money to subsidize in any direct way, so she will have to do it by way of taxation and other concessions. But, that’s the very reason the Tories were thrown out on their prats. While she has a four-year mandate, there is no point getting off on such a bad footing that she can never recover.

Secondly, to whom would Ms. Notley try to increase sales? That is the problem in a nutshell anyway – there are no customers right now for expensive Canadian heavy oil and unconventional gas.

The reality is that she’s left with no other choice but to sit back and hope for increased prices…At least in the short term.

There’s also no earthly reason why Alberta couldn’t use this opportunity to begin developing a clean tech industry that will yield jobs and revenues down the road. As our contributor and innovation expert Will Dubitsky has demonstrated repeatedly in these pages, that’s precisely what the US, China, Germany and other industrial nations are doing today – with great success. Now is as good a time as any to think the once unthinkable in Alberta.

A buyers’ market

As for the Tar Sands, the fact is that higher prices are really the only option any fossil fuel government really has in the world today. There are no mysterious kingdoms over the seas that have a burning desire (pun intended) for oil, have none, and just can’t wait to buy all they can. Everybody is in the same boat – producers have product but not enough customers.

This is not to say that Ms. Notley will not flap her wings and try to appear to be doing all sorts of things, but only to point out that she really hasn’t got too many options.

I have a surprise suggestion for Ms. Notley….

Changing the game

Having no bread, she needs a circus and this goes back to her election platform. To divert attention – and she will only be partly successful at that no matter what she does – she should bring in electoral changes in Alberta, some variation of Proportional Representation.

The results yesterday make the point that “first past the post” is about as unfair a way to run on the election as has yet been invented. She should take these results and run with them, perhaps having a constituent assembly as happened in British Columbia. She can tie this into the current economic situation by saying “if we had the input of other parties over the past years, etc., etc.”

It’s not as if this notion will fall on barren ground. Albertans have long chafed at their system – the Tories have not always been wildly popular in Alberta but seen as the only game in town. To offer voters the opportunity to vote effectively for whomever they please and still have a stable government at the end of the day is a very appealing thought.

Thin gruel?

Perhaps. But it is hard to imagine what else Ms. Notley can do at this stage. The Alberta economy is not one you can quickly or easily diversify (though she should start trying that now too, for good measure). The basis of the economy is in deep doo doo, and you’ve just been elected to do something.

Under those circumstances, one reads one’s Roman history and arranges a Circus Maxima, or at least as Maxima as you can make it.

Rafe: NDP Opposition should try some actual opposing

December 22, 2014Canada, Western CanadafeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe- NDP Opposition should try some actual opposing — BC NDP and Official Opposition Leader John Horgan (BCNDP.ca/youtube)

I’ve been very critical, especially recently in the tyee.ca, of John Horgan, leader of the NDP, and the Official Opposition itself. This is, I assure you, nothing personal but is entirely a matter of the quality of the opposition presented and the effect it has on forming public opinion.

Socred praise for Barrett NDP

A few days ago, I had the pleasure of talking to an old friend of mine of some 40 years, Grace McCarthy. As a couple of old pols will do, we started to reminisce. We got onto the topic of Oppositions and I was surprised – I shouldn’t have been – to hear both Grace and me extol the virtues of the NDP under Dave Barrett when we were in the House.

We talked about how the NDP kept us on our toes which, combined with a hostile press, did much to ensure that we moved carefully both in legislation and in policy.

I found both Grace and me not only congratulatory towards Dave Barrett, but there was a sense of warmth because both of us know what the opposition was supposed to do and enough time had passed for the personal sharpness to have disappeared. We agreed, of course, that we didn’t like it a damned bit when they did their job but that it was very much in the public interest.

The duty to oppose

The classic definition comes from Lord Randolph Churchill who said “it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose.” This doesn’t mean that it opposes the trivial but on all major issues it opposes the main parts.

A good example is Site C, which is as controversial an issue as British Columbia has seen in decades and, in fact, it goes back to my time in government in the 70s. In those days, our government rejected Site C largely based upon the cost, the lack of information as to alternatives and the consistent history of BC Hydro over-estimating its energy needs. “The more things change …”

With the present announcement of approval, Mr. Horgan should be dealing, may I say harshly, with a number of aspects of the development.

The residents of the area have a right to have their views expressed in the legislature and in the public. It doesn’t matter if Mr. Horgan thinks that it’s just “too bad” that they will lose their farms and homes – he and his colleagues must take up their case.

Plenty of faults to find with Site C

There is the question of the loss of 30,000 acres of farmland. Mr. Horgan may think that’s a worthwhile sacrifice but there are a hell of a lot of British Columbians who feel this land is sacred and that, indeed, it was the NDP which first made the inviolability of agricultural land the law.

There’s the question of alternative forms of energy. Mr. Horgan should have BC Hydro on the griddle asking about sources of supplementary power such as wind, tide and in particular geothermal. BC, we’re told, has virtually unlimited geothermal resources, yet there is a paucity of information on whether or not that could be harnessed instead of Hydro, or at least, supplementary to hydroelectric power.

NDP’s questionable support for LNG

The entire question of LNG is a huge one which Mr. Horgan chooses to gloss over.

Do we want to produce LNG with the damage that extraction does to the atmosphere?

Do we want to have “fracking” destroy the land around, gobble up the local water supply and pollute the water table with the waste?

Do we want to have LNG plants and the dangers they present?

Do we want to be enablers to other parts of the world so that instead of moving away from fossil fuel’s, they can use ours to their hearts’ content?

Do we want to run the risk of transporting LNG, especially in tankers down our fragile coast?

Cost of Site C

As one who has seen these things develop in the past, I would simply guess, just based on a gut the feeling, that the final price for Site C is likely to be closer to 12 billion than eight. Of course I could be wrong, but I bet my gut feeling is shared by many British Columbians who’ve watched these matters over the years.

Can Mr. Horgan assure us, as Leader of the Opposition, that he’s thoroughly tested this cost and is satisfied with it?

Instead of opposing in the way of our longstanding parliamentary practice, Mr. Horgan has chosen to ally himself with the Liberals, making this a “non-partisan issue”. (Now, in fairness, Mr. Horgan has retained some reservations in the area of revenue and need, but has not been vocally opposed to it.)

Where does NDP stand on the environment?

This brings into question this government’s entire environmental policy and whether or not Mr. Horgan is generally satisfied with it. If not, where is he opposed?

You simply cannot, logically, oppose the Ebridge pipeline because it brings toxic substances through our land and down the coast while at the same time supporting Kinder Morgan doing precisely the same thing.

You can’t logically reject the increased use of fossil fuels and then support LNG which, according to most scientists, poses the same danger to the environment as coal or oil.

Hardly a government in waiting

To be opposed to governmental policy, as a proper Official Opposition, doesn’t mean being against every jot and tittle. Moreover, in the fullness of time, you may support some or all of it. What it means really is the old American expression, “I’m from Missouri” and using skepticism to bring from the government a full justification of its policy, point by point.

There is another very serious aspect of the Official Opposition which Mr. Horgan seems to have overlooked. The Official Opposition should present to the public a “government in waiting” with its own policies in place as well as spokespeople for these policies.

Can anybody look at the Opposition as it exists today and say “I see a future government there”? I sure as hell can’t. I don’t even see a future Premier!

John Horgan and the NDP have less than 2 1/2 years to present themselves to the public has something to be supported.

Unless they get started on this project now, it will never get done in time.

Rafe: Christy Clark should try being more leader, less cheerleader

September 18, 2014Energy and Resources, LNG, Media, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedRafe Mair

Christy Clark should try being more leader, less cheerleader — BC Premier Christy Clark dons Canucks jersey during 2013 election campaign (Andy Clark / Reuters)

Nowhere in the appalling record of the Liberal government in Victoria has its shortcomings been more obvious than at the very top. Premier Christy Clark has been a terrible leader whose pronouncements get more and more embarrassing as time passes.

However, she so dominates the government that one is hard-pressed to think of even the names of her cabinet ministers, which doesn’t say much for their abilities or courage to speak out on issues.

Tsilhqot’in move merited praise…BUT the proof is in the pudding

I recently applauded Premier Clark for making formal contact with the Tsilhquot’in First Nation. I did this because she was right to do so. What she has said since makes me wonder if she really understood what she was supposed to be doing. That she understands the obvious politics in what she has done is clear but there is no evidence that she and her government comprehend what must now be a clear policy. We wait and see with hope, if not much confidence.

Absence of political courage

The premier simply cannot get serious. She always thinks of photo opportunities and public relations. In so doing, she totally discounts the need for common sense or consistency with other government policies. What she considers least is the impact of her airy-fairy words on the issue in question. Her need to make sense is permanently diminished by her inability to do so.

Nothing in this bankruptcy of leadership has suffered more than the area of energy and the environment.

The Mount Polley catastrophe and the absence of any investigation into her government’s own role simply typifies the utter disregard Premier Clark has for the requirements of leadership – one of the main ones being political courage.

On environment, media hasn’t held Clark’s feet to the fire

Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun has much disappointed me on environmental matters since the Liberals took office in 2001. It’s not what Palmer has said – it’s the absence of any comment whatsoever which is troubling.

Considering Palmer’s yeoman service when the in the NDP were in power, we were entitled to expect that this same close attention to government policy would be maintained. In fact, in these areas there has been none from the mainstream media.

LNG: house of cards crumbling

Palmer has, in my view, redeemed himself considerably by his writings on LNG. He has consistently poked at the government and their starry-eyed approach to this question and, as time has passed, it is becoming clear that those of us who from the very beginning were throwing cold water on Clark’s blatherings were right after all.

My own skepticism was fuelled simply by what I read about the energy situation in Asia – of much more importance were the words of experts such as economist Erik Andersen and energy scientists who made it clear that the government had no grounds whatsoever for its wild enthusiasm.

“Prosperity” fund shrinks from $100 Billion to “billions”

This, I think, is what is so troubling about the Premier’s actions past and present. You may remember that during the last election, the “Prosperity Fund” which was the subject of the premier’s reveries, was going to add a trillion dollars to our GDP and $100 billion to our provincial coffers!

Instead of the premier and her experts in the energy field coldly and soberly analyzing the prospects for sale of LNG from BC plants to Asian markets, we got the fulminations of a cheerleader, the content of which made as much sense as most high school cheerleaders make. This is not what the public of British Columbia needs and indeed is not terribly helpful to the industry itself.

Today, Clark is promising only “billions of dollars” from LNG – but how many? “Billions” could technically be as few as two. She’s considerably less specific on that point today…

Palmer, in carefully researched interventions, is bringing doses of reality to badly-hyped government propaganda.

NDP opposition not much help either

Unhappily, the leader of the NDP, John Horgan is not much more helpful than Clark. In the very beginning, he anchored himself to a policy of supporting LNG – without any clear idea as to what that blanket support was going to entail. Now, instead of being able to criticize government policy, he is stuck with past pronouncements.

Leadership is not cheerleading

Leadership is not about raising unreasonable expectations or allowing those expectations to remain unchallenged. Quite the opposite. Leadership is about cool, unemotional analysis of issues and putting careful processes in place to make sure that initiatives are successful.

There is nothing the matter, of course – and, indeed, a great deal right – about government and opposition leaders supporting that which is good for the province of British Columbia. It is courageously determining whether or not it is good that is the sign of leadership.

There seems to be little any of us can do about it. So long as the Liberal Party is content to stay with Ms. Clark, she will likely stay. Dislodging a sitting leader is a daunting prospect, indeed. As the NDP have shown, it’s difficult enough to dislodge one that isn’t sitting.

Unless there is a miraculous sea change in the attitude from Mr. Horgan and his party, they are not going to provide the “government-in-waiting” that oppositions are supposed to provide. This is a most unhealthy situation.

Media matters

Once more, this all underlines the importance of a vigilant media. Mr. Palmer deserves credit for his assumption of leadership on the LNG issue. This leadership, must, however, be broadened to include the entire energy picture – and, of course, the overall issue of the environment.

This journal will continue to be ever on top of these issues, but it needs help from the mainstream media, who thus far have abdicated their responsibilities herein.

May the example of Mr. Palmer extend to others at his newspaper, the Vancouver Sun, television media and others.

Only when it does will we have a force in this province that effectively holds governments’ feet to the fire and exposes the puerile blatherings of the premier for what they are.

Rafe: Why Bennett should resign over Mount Polley

August 20, 2014Metals and Minerals, Mining, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe- Bennett should resign over Mount Polley — In the old days of BC politics, Minister Bennett would resign, says Rafe (Youtube/Got News Network)

One day, in 1863, Mr. Byrne decided to take a stroll to get a little bit of Liverpool air. As he ambled down the street he went past Mr. Boadle’s flour factory. To his considerable surprise and horror, flying out of the window on the second floor, came a barrel of flour which fell upon Mr. Byrne, knocked him to the ground, inflicting on him grievous bodily injury.

Mr. Byrne, a tad upset by all of this, decided to sue Mr. Boadle.

When the case came to court, Mr. Boadle’s lawyers argued that there was no evidence of negligence. After all, no one had seen the barrel of flour come out of the window so how can anybody tell what in fact had happened? Mr. Byrne, said Mr. Boadle, had to prove negligence and all he could show is that somehow, God only knows how, a barrel of flour had fallen out of a window and hit him on the head. That, said Mr. Boadle, was scarcely proof of his negligence.

Somehow, the learned judges hearing the case, were not impressed with this argument.

Res ipsa loquitur

Shorn of the Latin and legalese, essentially they said, “How the hell else could this have happened?” Barrels of flour don’t usually fall out of second-story windows on people walking down the street. Mr. Byrne was given damages. (If you happen to be interested, the legal doctrine is called “res ipsa loquitur”, or in English, “the thing speaks for itself”.)

How does this relate to the Mount Polley catastrophe, you might well ask – I’m sure that was on your mind!

Well there is now considerable argument as to whether or not anybody was negligent in the breaching of that dam, if so who it was, and how could you prove it anyway? Mr. Byrne would be able to answer that question easily.

There is no need to concern oneself about who is liable here – those who own and run the dam and those who have a duty to inspect that dam and make sure that it was kept in proper repair. That is the barrel of flour in this case.

Investigation designed to fail

Somehow Premier Christy Clark and Minister Bill Bennett have never read Byrne v. Boadle. They are flopping about talking about investigations – announced at an appalling press conference earlier this week.

By careful but not very clever design, the “independent” engineering inquiry from the outset exonerates Mr. Bennett’s and Ms. Polak’s ministries. When you look through the 14 recommendations, there is one that faintly suggests that the commissioners might want to look at the regulatory regime surrounding this disaster. There is no mandate to do so and it is not any more than a casual comment. Moreover, none of the commissioners have any expertise to look at this aspect of the matter.

I don’t mean this in unfairness to the commissioners – I don’t know the gentlemen, but their credentials with respect to mining seem impeccable. But to check into the regulatory obligations of ministries and whether or not they have been fulfilled requires a lawyer or a judge.

Bigger than Mount Polley

There must be, of course, a full and independent investigation. It is not simply the Mount Polley case with which we are concerned here.

There are not only countless other dams in the province but a number of other edifices which are under statutory scrutiny by the government of British Columbia and one or more of its ministries. The fact that no other dam has burst for awhile has nothing to do with it (though there have been no less than 46 “dangerous or unusual occurrences” at tailings ponds around the province from 2000-2012).

Dams don’t burst very often, the Saints be praised, but when they do, all hell breaks loose. It’s rather like tankers full of bitumen or LNG hitting something, or a pipeline bursting, isn’t it, when you think about it?

No one out for an afternoon fishing, a couple of weeks ago, would have predicted that the dam was about to burst. That’s why there are government regulations. Dams sit there for a long time without looking like they’re going to burst.

[signoff3]

Being part of the Environment or Mines ministries, in the regulations department, is rather boring work. Nothing much happens. It’s pretty easy to assume that since nothing much is happening but nothing much will.

Now, it is not the good and skillful people that work within these ministries who assume that nothing will happen. Quite the opposite, their training is to know that something will happen sometime and their job is to prevent it.

No, it’s the idiots that run the ministries and politicians whose only concern is that catastrophes happen other than when they are in charge.

That’s why Mount Polley disasters happen.

Government’s regulatory failure is key issue

What is irrelevant, at this point, is how much damage this has all cost. Now, don’t get me wrong, it’s appalling to think of the consequences of this. I only say what I say because that is a separate issue which will have to be dealt with separately. As a man who’s been a lifelong opponent of capital punishment, I must say I could change my mind if I could catch the people who destroy our precious salmon and our God-given environment. That, however, as I say, it is not the point I’m going on today.

Today we must find out why our government and those who run it failed so utterly in their duty and what we must do about it. Remember, there is evidence that the ministry staff did indeed point out defects and ordered that they be corrected. There is evidence that the company simply failed to do what it was told to do.

A lack of enforcement

If that indeed happened, it means that there was a lack of enforcement. Lack of enforcement, be it fish farms, independent power projects, or dams inevitably points the finger at the politician. You cannot expect the companies to behave anything other than like companies. Their job is to make money and to explain away terrible things that happen by saying they’ll never happen again.

However, it is the bounden duty of those we elect to enforce the law.

We will never know all the answers until somebody of considerable talent and learning can stand back from this and investigate the entire matter going back to that day in 2001when industry began to get a free ride from its new friends in government led then by Gordon Campbell, now by Christy Clark.

Frankly, we’re looking at a judge. Anybody else will simply not have enough credibility with the public.

Minister should have resigned

Minister Bennett ought to have instantly resigned, not because of any personal negligence but because the time honoured rule is that if a ministry fails in its fundamental duty, it is the minister who must run up on his own sword. Unhappily, we don’t seem to pay much attention to these little rules anymore. I say unhappily, because the essence of good government is that the minister for each and every ministry is “responsible” for the actions of that ministry.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that if one of his employees did something naughty, that the minister would be responsible. It does not mean that the minister must resign any time his ministry makes a mistake. To err is human.

No, we’re talking about the failure of a ministry to do its fundamental and in this case statutory duty.

It is remarkable to me, as one who has been in the BC Cabinet, the casual attitude being betrayed by the government in general. I recognize that Mr. Bennett is losing sleep and that the Premier wants to make the lake just as pretty as it used to be and promises to do so.

There is, however, the huge question of Public Duty involved and that is simply not being addressed. Either we have a government where there is ministerial responsibility or we do not. Evidently the answer is we do not.

If we, the public, don’t take this seriously, even if it means a little serious philosophizing about what governments are supposed to do, then we will deserve to have this kind of government forever.

Mount Polley owner donated half a million dollars to Liberals, gets easy ride from Bennett

August 8, 2014Metals and Minerals, Mining, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

BC Minister of Mines Bill Bennett (CP) — BC Minister of Energy and Mines Bill Bennett (CP)

By Alex Hanson

The Bill Bennett dog and pony show has been wheeled out in the media once again, this time to cover for his long time pal and major campaign contributor Murray Edwards – the biggest shareholder at the now infamous Mount Polley Mine.

The recent debacle at Mount Polley has the potential for being the biggest environmental disaster in BC history. It has the president of the mining company, Imperial Metals, running in circles with claims that the sludge from their tailings pond is “very close” to drinking water quality.

It also has Minister of Mines and Energy, Bill Bennett doing damage control on behalf of the BC Liberals for their mismanagement of mining in BC – choosing to let companies police themselves as the BC Liberals rid themselves of government inspectors.

Here’s what Postmedia columnist Stephen Hume had to say about Bennett’s response: “…the usually ebullient and forceful minister sounded uncharacteristically querulous, a hand-wringer rather than a strong leader. The best he could initially summon was the observation that the disaster shouldn’t have happened. Gosh, you don’t say! But it did happen, on his watch, and he is responsible for making sure accidents like this don’t happen.”

The most Bennett could muster was a whopping $1 million fine for this colossal fiasco.

But why would Bennett take a political hit by being so weak on the issue, when Imperial Metals has been so openly reckless in their stewardship of the environment?

Mount Polley owner one of Liberals’ biggest donors

Back in January 2013, two men – Murray Edwards and Rod Love – put on a $125 per plate fundraiser in Calgary for the BC Liberals, prior to last provincial election. Dig a little deeper and you’ll find that various companies in which Calgary billionaire and Flames owner Edwards is a major investor gave an additional $482,857 to the BC Liberals over the last several years:

Imperial Metals: $178,300
Canadian Natural Resources: $153,480
Penn West Petroleum: $65,835
Mount Polley Mining: $46,720
Resorts of the Canadian Rockies: $23,522
Ensign Drilling: $15,000 (source: Elections BC)

No wonder the BC Liberals began gutting the Ministry of Mines and paving the way for pipelines as soon they got into power. Less regulation and enforcement means more room for profit.

And with the 18th richest billionaire in Canada as Bennett and Clark’s major campaign contributor, we should expect to see more of the Minister of Energy and Mines sitting pretty in front of the cameras, as he whitewashes the Mount Polley disaster for his buddy Mr. Edwards.

Say cheese Minister Bennett!

Alex Hanson
Fernie BC

[signoff3]

Rafe: Mount Polley Mine proves Liberal “de-regulation” doesn’t work

August 7, 2014Metals and Minerals, Mining, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe: Mount Polley Mine a "colossal screwup" by BC Liberal govt — Blame the BC Liberals’ lax regulations for Mount Polley Mine, says Rafe Mair (BC Liberal facebook page)

The Mount Polley Mine/Imperial Metals disaster is such that one scarcely knows where to start. Fortunately, the people of British Columbia have a writer like Stephen Hume, who in the Vancouver Sun tells chapter and verse about the failings of the Ministry of Environment’s statutory obligations to regulate.

You know, there must’ve been a date back when that all of the civic dignitaries and the executives of the company and a number of politicians had a glorious day opening the mine and telling everyone how safe it was and how the company’s record was perfect and that in the very unlikely event they missed something, why, there were always those faithful government inspectors to make sure that things were up to snuff.

Expect same (de)regulation of LNG, pipelines, tankers

This naturally got me thinking about the same things now being said about LNG plants and tankers; about Tar Sands pipelines and tankers. Same corporate public relations departments – same addle-headed politicians.

But, I can’t shake it! How come no one has to resign? This is a colossal screwup by the government of British Columbia. Is no one to blame? Whatever happened to the notion of ministerial responsibility?

[signoff3]

I suppose the answer is that when you have political lightweights like the Christy Clark government, totally unmindful of their responsibility to stand by their actions, you’re not going to have anyone even pause for a moment to think that they should pay a price. The whole question of ministerial responsibility has become less and less fashionable as the years go by, but surely there must be some point where the screwup is so bad that someone must run up on their sword.

They should have seen this coming

Lest one think that the Clark government hasn’t had the faintest idea the trouble was brewing in the inspections department, Stephen Hume tells us that the University of Victoria’s Environment Law Center reported in 2012 that environmental assessment certificates issued by government were often “vague and unenforceable”… and that by 2008, the number of mine inspections had fallen to one half what they were in 2001. The Ministry of Environment staff shrank during that time by 25% and the chief mining inspector had insufficient staff to complete the annual the monitoring reports required. And – this has to shake you – the report said:

[quote]This ramshackle enforcement regime is not good enough for an industry that can create environmental and financial catastrophes.[/quote]

Thus the Clark government knew that their enforcement system was inadequate to the task, yet when that breach of public duty spawned disaster, they pay no price!

The Campbell/Clark liberal government has been playing Russian roulette with the safety of British Colombians since it took office in 2001.

Same lax regulations applied to fish farms, IPPs

You may remember that one of the first things this government did was return all of fines levied against fish farmers for illegal practices.

Then came the “raping” of our rivers by private power concerns who were given the opportunity to bankrupt BC Hydro at the same time. These private schemes, which put up dams on the rivers which they prefer to call weirs, are under strict guidelines as to how much water they can use and when, in order to protect the fish. The trouble is that the companies have paid no attention whatsoever to these guidelines unless it suited them and the government hasn’t enforced them, nor has it demonstrated any intention to.

Thus, when you look at the failures of the Ministry of Environment as outlined by Stephen Hume, you see a systemic avoidance of enforcement going right back to the days the Liberals were elected. Yet no minister nor the government need take any responsibility for this!

“Red Tape” and other euphemisms

Enforcement rules are usually referred to by industry and their captive politicians as “red tape” and “de-regulation” or “streamlining” become buzzwords. It’s assumed that if all of these silly bureaucrats would stop trying to enforce idiotic safety regulations, we would all make lots more money. The notion perpetuated by industry is that every rule and regulation is there to stop them making money and, of course, distributing that generously amongst the less well-off in the community, and that these stupid bloody rules should all be tossed aside or ignored; that government regulation, whether it be by way of safety in a factory or a mine, or protection of fish and wildlife, are all bureaucratic nuisances set in place by “socialists” to prevent the entrepreneur from doing great things.

This is the history of these matters. When you read about the struggles of labor unions to get essential safety features into the workplace and see just how minor those reforms were and the fuss the politicians and industrialists made, you can’t believe that caring human beings with souls were involved on the corporate and government side.

Corporations have but one objective

The problem with the general public is that by and large it doesn’t understand what corporations are all about. Companies have one sole purpose: making money for their shareholders. Every penny that is taken from that undertaking is a penny misspent. This is not some sort of socialistic cynicism – it’s simply describes the beast. It has always been that way and it always will be.

Does anyone seriously think that entrepreneurs would go out of their way to voluntarily provide safety regulations and environmental protection and things of that sort that were adverse to their ability to make money? History is crystal clear on the point.

Of course, there are areas where it makes sense for companies to do the right thing by the general public. But it has to make sense on the balance sheet.

What about salmon?

Dead fish found downstream from Mount Polley tailings pond breach (Chris Lyne)

I haven’t spoken about the sockeye salmon. Here we are in a year where huge returns are expected and the Quesnel run may be destroyed. It’s too soon to know what the total impact will be but it bodes to be huge.

The sad thing here is we’re not talking about natural disasters but man-made disasters that could’ve been and often were predicted but ignored. We’re like Charlie Brown and football – we know Lucy’s going to pull it away at the last minute, but we play the game anyway and we always lose. It’s as if we don’t want to know the answers.

Just what are the dangers associated with an LNG tanker crash? What will be the consequences of a Tar Sands tanker crashing in one of our beautiful and sensitive fjords? What will be the consequences of a punctured pipeline in the rugged territory they pass through from Alberta to the BC coast?

Lessons learned

This may seem unrelated to the Imperial Metals disaster, but it actually is very apropos. It is not just the likelihood of a disaster we must concern ourselves with but the extent of that disaster. We then must decide whether or not we’re going to take adequate steps to police these undertakings or just blissfully ignore them because the public relations departments of large companies tell us there’s nothing to worry about?

The Imperial Mine disaster story has legs. We now have in front of us a snapshot of what happens when large undertakings with potentially catastrophic consequences are not policed.

This is what happens when we leave it all to the Company.

This is what happens when a right-wing government takes over and decides to go easy on big business.

This is what happens when we allow ourselves to be deluded into buzz phrases such as “we’re being ruined by red tape”.

This is what happens when we turn a blind eye to common sense and assume that because nothing has happened yet, it’s not going to happen.

The Imperial Metals disaster proves, as if proof were necessary, that no large corporation will do anymore than it has to and then it will always place money in shareholders pockets ahead of money in public safety. It proves again, as if it were necessary, that governments in the pockets of industry will pay no attention to troublesome details like public safety and the security of our Wildlife.

What now?

The real question is what do we people think or care about this. If we believe that industry knows best and that our wellbeing depends upon our accepting their terms – so be it. We can’t be heard to complain about the consequences.

If, on the other hand, there is more to life than making money for foreign companies and we do care about the safety of our people, the preservation of our environment and the wellbeing of our wildlife, then we have to make some economic sacrifices. These economic sacrifices include not just passing regulations to ensure that those who invade our environment do so safely, but enforcing those regulations and being prepared to spend the money to do that.

Heads should roll on this one, but of course they won’t. Premier Clark hasn’t the faintest idea about responsibility of cabinet ministers to back up their mistakes with resignations. We the public should learn that laissez-faire government carries with it the inevitable consequence that the rich get richer and that the public and the environment in which they live get much the poorer.

If we don’t learn these lessons from this disaster, then we get what we bloody well deserve.

Examining the BC Liberal Government’s real fiscal record

August 2, 2014Economics, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

The Common Sense Canadian’s Damien Gillis discusses the BC Liberal government’s real fiscal track record with CFAX radio’s Ian Jessop in Victoria.

The two contrast a history of serious cost-overruns on major infrastructure projects with the oft-repeated myth of the government’s sound fiscal management. From the Port Mann Bridge and Hwy 1 widening (550% of initial estimate) to the a new roof for BC Place Stadium (514% of original projection), emerges a shocking pattern of inept project management.

From July 29 (19 min)

[signoff3]

Can environmentalism be liberated from partisan politics?

July 28, 2014Politics, Western CanadafeaturedKevin Logan

Can environmentalism be liberated from partisan politics — Ex-BC Green Leader Jane Sterk (left) and Premier Christy Clark on the 2013 campaign trail (Facebook)

In BC, conflating environmentalism and politics is a mainstay. Is it possible to restore environmentalism in BC, free of partisan politics and more in tune with the actual environment? Here is where environmentalists can learn a lot from the rich and much longer history of the labour movement.

Much like labour, the environmental movement has hitched itself to a political party. This approach did not – and has not – served labour well as a force for progressive change, but rather doing so allowed electoral politics to marginalize the agenda of the majority of the populace, otherwise known as working people.

Interest groups, or lobbies like labour and environmentalism, are much more able to forward their cause as independent, partisan-free organizations whose sole intent is to leverage whomever is in power to make gains for their constituency. In this vein, it is of course crucial to be political, however, if such a group is already committed to a political body it impairs their ability to properly leverage gains, regardless of who is in power and what industry dominates the economic and political landscape.

The Green-industrial alliance

Environmentalism in BC has not only marginalized progressive environmental policy and the desires of BC’s majority by embedding itself in the Green Party, but in so doing has adopted Green Party politics. It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that the Green Party in BC is an enabling mechanism for the dominant industries and political players, most all of which are antithetical to what are commonly understood to be green values and policy objectives – at least, as they are advertised.

This corporate subordination of Green politics has been evident in many ways – from the Liberal Party paying for Green Party advertising during last campaign, to now-Green MLA Andrew Weaver’s support of Gordon Campbell in 2009, and now a proposed refinery and supporting oil pipeline. Vote splitting between the Greens and NDP has long enabled brown governments, while enviro campaigns focus on simple targets like Enbridge, to the exclusion of much bigger industrial objectives, LNG being a prime example.

Simple adjustments like electing environmental leaders through democratic reform of their organizations could be one small step to avert such dichotomy.

As it is, self-appointed leaders of green organizations dominate in BC and what we see are the brownest industries on earth undertaking an agenda that is anything but green – advanced under an unelected, social license machine that markets itself as “green.”

[signoff3]

This is not incidental or new or a mere inconvenience. Nor is it a tactical corporate tool such as “greenwashing” – rather it is a well-honed, long-practiced underpinning of both our corporate and social fabric. As a result, those that exploit oil, gas, timber, mineral and other resources are inextricably linked to the green movement and its lead organizations. It’s not simply a synergy or an alignment of convenience but rather they are one and the same.

The 2009 election saw a major schism within the so-called environmental community, whereby some leaders backed the Liberals in the name of climate action – over their controversial “run-of-river” program – even as the Campbell government vowed to build the Enbridge pipeline and continue developing the province’s oil and gas resources.

This result is not unlike the history of the labour movement in BC, despite labour having a more democratic footing and elected leadership – which only proves that democratic reform is but one step in the right direction. The two movements have much in common and face similar challenges, which is why it has always seemed odd to me that labour and environmentalism have been pitted against each other, often resulting in political failure for progressive people, policy and politicians.

“Economy vs. Environment” = false dichotomy

The age-old debate of “Economy vs. Environment” that has brought BC’s progressive forces to their knees is a false political construct, one foisted upon us by regressive, often conservative forces. It’s akin to suggesting to someone their car does not run because of the “air vs. gasoline” problem. While it is true that a combustion engine depends almost entirely on the air/gas mixture, these forces are not opposed but rather required to work in harmony, in the right balance, in order to perform as a finely tuned machine.

It’s pretty clear to me that we are not going to be scrapping the combustion engine that is our “global economy” anytime soon, despite it setting the world on fire – but we in BC can work to ensure the economy and environment balance is that of a well performing machine. That sort of tune-up is what BC needs and may still be within our grasp.

Democratic reforms could help solve problem

One step in that direction is to restore the autonomy of lobby groups/PACS/interest groups through law. This could include, or rather should force them to be non-partisan, while providing a framework for forwarding policy objectives and political goals that is much more defined. Doing so would help level the playing field and neuter the abuse undertaken by the powerful and privileged who manipulate perception and public opinion with front groups whose true agenda is often far removed from their public mandate.

From there, political party reforms are required. These could reinforce this notion by banning lobby groups/PACS/interest groups from holding membership blocks in political parties, while simultaneously ending their ability to finance parties. This could be achieved by funding parties solely with public dollars and capping their election marketing campaign expenditures. All of which would level the political playing field by offering each party the same access to the public with the same capacity to spread their message.

And of course, no parties should be run by the Kool Topp Guys at Hill and Knowlton or other major corporate lobbies, and especially not their election campaigns, all of which should be clearly banned in law. (By the way, the Toronto Star has just published a piece on the issue of the status and purpose of political parties that is worth a read, as is this follow-up piece by Don Lenihan).

Regardless, serious reforms are required and this is becoming more evident to the majority now. Yet, however fundamental, change is never easy, and often we see where such changes result in even worse setbacks, especially if the general trajectory is downward, which seems to be the case in North America. And certainly when they are about stripping power and privilege from those we have allowed to gain such immense and unprecedented power and privilege. Such entitlement is not easy to erase or even correct.

Saving BC means building new alliances

These are the circumstances that give rise to organizations that pander to power while working to inspire hope and change amongst the faithful and downtrodden, progressive-thinking populace. It’s a necessary component to political stability in a “capitalist” society run by oligarchs. BC’s environmental movement has not escaped this dynamic.

Labour has long gone down this road and fulfilled this role, in BC and elsewhere. Environmentalism seems to be their junior partner now, as the house of labour allowed itself to become stagnant and often irrelevant in our fast-changing world and labour market.So we see a partnering now, not one that delivers political victory but rather one that continues to sustain the oligarchical system, while working to maintain political stability by manufacturing consent.

If BC is to survive this global corporate onslaught, we need to get busy reforming the long-established mainstays of our political culture, which ranges from First Nations political bodies, through environmentalism and labour, as well as, our political parties – not to mention the media.

These are all public institutions made up of British Columbians, therefore change is within our grasp. Doing so may allow us to avert simply being manipulated by a small minority who implement their strategy in unison with influential interest groups, devising the rhetorical narrative that drives the plunder of our province.

Time is short and resistance is no longer a luxury but instead has become necessary for our collective well being.